Oh, okay, so your point might be (?) that domesticated animals have a lower infant mortality rate and therefore a better "quality" of life? Domestic animals receive more care from their owners either due to affection (as in pets) or because of their economic value (farm animals) and receive visits from a veterinarian as needed and therefore tend to have longer lives than their counterparts in the wild.

But from a vegetarian perspective, there would still be a killer, someone killing the animal for food, as part of the meat industry chain of events; someone placing an order, store purchasing more meat, slaughterhouse killing more, requesting more animals from the cattle farmer.

Looks like another to me.

"We look after animals till they are fat enough, then kill them."

Hey! I'm on your side. I was just trying to figure out what chownah's "point" was, I was not agreeing with him.

1.
a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons.

A vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. People often get confused that it means someone who only eats vegetables. I think it originally came from a latin word which just sounds like vegetable. It came from a latin word which simply means "one who abstains from meat."

A vegetarian might eat eggs, cheese, other foods which are not even vegetables, but still be a vegetarian.

A vegan is a vegetarian who also excludes all animal products (dairy, cheese, eggs, honey, etc).

And as a result of this there would be many animals who enter the world, live reasonably comfortable lives if raised by people who care about the welfare of the animals they raise, and who then die in a relatively stress free way...

I don't think there's any chance animals would stop being bred and born in this world if humans stopped artificially breeding them. The animals would do just fine without human intervention.

Animals don't die in a "relatively stress free way" at least not at factory farms. See any of the many documentaries on the killing process at factory farms and slaughterhouses. For example:

Oh, okay, so your point might be (?) that domesticated animals have a lower infant mortality rate and therefore a better "quality" of life? Domestic animals receive more care from their owners either due to affection (as in pets) or because of their economic value (farm animals) and receive visits from a veterinarian as needed and therefore tend to have longer lives than their counterparts in the wild.

But from a vegetarian perspective, there would still be a killer, someone killing the animal for food, as part of the meat industry chain of events; someone placing an order, store purchasing more meat, slaughterhouse killing more, requesting more animals from the cattle farmer.

Looks like another to me.

"We look after animals till they are fat enough, then kill them."

Hey! I'm on your side. I was just trying to figure out what chownah's "point" was, I was not agreeing with him.

So now we are picking sides.....it is not surprising to see that you take a posture against me. Do you even know what "side" I am presenting?....please explain to me what side I am representing.
chownah

So now we are picking sides.....it is not surprising to see that you take a posture against me. Do you even know what "side" I am presenting?....please explain to me what side I am representing.
chownah

You are obviously suggesting that it is okay to raise animals for meat and kill them for meat. And then there is the vegetarian perspective. I didn't say you are not allowed to express your opinion, I was just responding to dinsdale who might have thought I was taking your view, which I am not. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to disagree with it.

1.
a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons.

A vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. People often get confused that it means someone who only eats vegetables. I think it originally came from a latin word which just sounds like vegetable. It came from a latin word which simply means "one who abstains from meat."

A vegetarian might eat eggs, cheese, other foods which are not even vegetables, but still be a vegetarian.

A vegan is a vegetarian who also excludes all animal products (dairy, cheese, eggs, honey, etc).

It really all just depends on how one wants to define the term.....and it seems that different people define it in different ways. You are presenting the most commonly held definition for 'vegetarian' but it is clear that other people use other definitions.......some people use the term 'lacto vegetarian' and some use the term 'lacto-ovo vegetarian' etc.......which shows that there is some diversity in the use of the term 'vegetarian'.

I guess you are against me when I say this.....I guess we are choosing sides.....what side am I on?
chownah

So now we are picking sides.....it is not surprising to see that you take a posture against me. Do you even know what "side" I am presenting?....please explain to me what side I am representing.
chownah

You are obviously saying that it is okay to raise animals for meat and kill them for meat. And then there is the vegetarian perspective. I didn't say you are not allowed to express your opinion, I was just responding to dinsdale who might have thought I was taking your view, which I am not. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to disagree with it.

I don't recall having made any moral statements about what is ok or what is not with regard to raising animals for meat and/or killing them for meat......at least not in recent memory. I can't remember ever posting here taking such a moral stance but it is possible that I did so at some time; it would however be pretty contrary to my usual stance on these matters in that I as a general rule don't take such an extreme stance in these matters.....so.....can you show me in my recent postings where you think I am obviously saying what you claim?

I think that what I have been posting is pretty much just a discussion of different things dealing with the lives of animals both in the wild and on farms. Instead of fabricating some false view of me moralizing about these things why don't you reply to what I have what I have brought?

It seems that what I have brought is some kind of a powerful arguement as evidenced by your resorting to fabrications rather than dealing with the things I presented.

If you want to choose sides and be against me at least have the courtesy to be against what I have said and not just against some imaginary stuff which I did not say.

Of course if you find that I in fact did take a stand as you suggest then I will offer my heartfelt apology.....go take a look....only if you want to.....
chownah

It is throughout this thread and perhaps others where you suggest that it is okay to raise animals for meat. Again, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion. If you have changed your mind, then that is fine, that is your choice. You have presented your views and you are allowed to do that. And I am allowed to disagree. Enough meta-discussion about sides; I was just making it clear to dinsdale that I don't share your view, that's all.

And as a result of this there would be many animals who enter the world, live reasonably comfortable lives if raised by people who care about the welfare of the animals they raise, and who then die in a relatively stress free way...

I don't think there's any chance animals would stop being bred and born in this world if humans stopped artificially breeding them. The animals would do just fine without human intervention.

Animals don't die in a "relatively stress free way" at least not at factory farms. See any of the many documentaries on the killing process at factory farms and slaughterhouses. For example:

I don't see how your first paragraph has to do with anything....my reply is "so what?"....although you don't seem to be aware of the fact that the way the world is going it might not be long until cheetahs (for example) will only survive because of artificial breeding and human intervention....and there are many many others......scientists are saying that the way things are going it might not be long before cattle are the largest mammal commonly occuring throughout the world. I know that what I am saying probably doesn't seem to be to the point you are making but that is because I can't see what your point is.

Factory farms are really bad. (This is about as moralizing as I get with respect to these issues). If people who really cared for animals raised and slaughtered them then their lives would indeed be relatively stress free.....certainly much more stress free than animals living in the wild.
chownah

I don't see how your first paragraph has to do with anything....my reply is "so what?"....although you don't seem to be aware of the fact that the way the world is going it might not be long until cheetahs (for example) will only survive because of artificial breeding and human intervention....and there are many many others......scientists are saying that the way things are going it might not be long before cattle are the largest mammal commonly occuring throughout the world. I know that what I am saying probably doesn't seem to be to the point you are making but that is because I can't see what your point is.

That is what I am saying too (in so many words), "so what." Let nature takes its course, the animals do just fine without human intervention. Cheetahs might be near extinction exactly because of human intervention -- poaching and hunting (by humans). Human intervention is sometimes needed to protect a species because of previous intervention such as poaching and other things which led to their demise.

It is throughout this thread and perhaps others where you suggest that it is okay to raise animals for meat. Again, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion. If you have changed your mind, then that is fine, that is your choice. You have presented your views and you are allowed to do that. And I am allowed to disagree. Enough meta-discussion about sides; I was just making it clear to dinsdale that I don't share your view, that's all.

Can you show me some.....since it is "thorughout" this thread it should be easy for you to do a search and find a few such instances.

I don't see how your first paragraph has to do with anything....my reply is "so what?"....although you don't seem to be aware of the fact that the way the world is going it might not be long until cheetahs (for example) will only survive because of artificial breeding and human intervention....and there are many many others......scientists are saying that the way things are going it might not be long before cattle are the largest mammal commonly occuring throughout the world. I know that what I am saying probably doesn't seem to be to the point you are making but that is because I can't see what your point is.

That is what I am saying too (in so many words), "so what." Let nature takes its course, the animals do just fine without human intervention. Cheetahs might be near extinction exactly because of human intervention -- poaching and hunting (by humans). Human intervention is sometimes needed to protect a species because of previous intervention such as poaching and other things which led to their demise.

Again, I say 'so what?'....I'm all for nature taking its course....did I say something to indicate that I was against it? There are animals in the wild and there are animals on farms. The animals on farms when raised by people who care about animals and treat them humanely have a pretty definitely better quality of life than animals in the wild. Here, I'll bring a piece of a previous post:

And as a result of this there would be many animals who enter the world, live reasonably comfortable lives if raised by people who care about the welfare of the animals they raise, and who then die in a relatively stress free way...
....compare this with zebra in africa who enter the world sometimes on the run, 50% of which die as infants mostly by predation, are constantly under threat of being eaten by predators, are likely to go through periods of draught and famine, and almost always eventually die in fearful and dire circumstance often being eaten while still alive......virtually ALL of them are violently killed.....none of them are bed ridden for weeks or months.....when you are weakened you are killed and if you are lucky (I guess) you die before you are dismemebered.

I think it can be seen that even when consider their deaths (which seems to be a major concern for many vegetarians) that humanely raised farm animals fair much better overall than wild animals.
Consider: If wild animals is the best way to go for animals then is it better for people to live like wild animals?....why not let nature take its course (as you say) when it come to humans?
chownah

Consider: If wild animals is the best way to go for animals then is it better for people to live like wild animals?....why not let nature take its course (as you say) when it come to humans?
chownah

Animals are in a woeful state (according to Buddhism). Humans are higher than that. According to Buddhism it is wrong to kill or cause to kill. Does meat eating, contribute to killing? That is the debate in this thread and there are various views on this matter.